St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1887-11-30
An Important Extract From
Secretary Lamar'S Forth
coming Annual Report.
How the Interior Department
Has Fought the Settlers
Battles,
rs Against Land GrabberS
and Big Railway No
nopolies.
The New York Papers Again
Trying to Buy the Presi-
dents Annual.

lHG pdll hIlGh lCtd1lNO ~ thS
ments of railroad land grants. He has
to-day received this part of his report
from the public printer, and 1t reads as
follows:
''Shortly after my appointment to the
position | now have the honor to hold,
and as | became somewhat familiar with
the public land system, its organization
and the workings thereof, l became
more and mere impressed with the fact
that the public domain was being
diverted from its legitimate purpose and
converted to objects the inevitable
effects of which were repugnant to the
entire theory on which the land system
was based. Apart from the methods of
illegal appropriation of the public do
main effected through the peryersiOn of
the several laws for acquiring title
thereto became convinced that the adj
miniStratiOn OF congressional grants OF
lands to wagon and railroads had given
rise to enormous abuses. Congress had
not ONLY made grants which in some in
stances exceeded in extent the area of
half dozen of the largest and most
populouS states of the Union, but III al
diti0n provided that
ANY LOSSES OF LANDS
within the granted limits should be sat
isfed by selections of lands within other
ling the area of the original grants.
Under these acts, the land department
had withdrawn from public apprOprla-
ton not only the granted limits as re-
0uired by law. but also the lands within
the indemnity limits at the request OF
the grantee companies. Thus enormous
quantities of the public lands were held
in reservation to await the convenience
of the respective corporations IN the
construction of their roads, the Selec-
ton of their lands, and the uncertain
adjustments OF the grants by the de-
nartment. | DO not for moment mean
TO question the wisdom of aiding in the
construction of railroads. That policy
was at the time wise one, but i'll the
light of experience it may well be asked
whether it would not have been wiser
to have aided these great enterprises
otherwise than by grants of the public
domain. Though much good has been
wrought, certain it is that the legiSla-
ton by which these vast territories
passed under the dominion OF railroad
companies gave an incurable wound to
to the homestead scheme before that
scheme had fair opportunity for dis
PLAYING its beneficent effects. This
land grant legislation was certainly not
in harmony with the theory of a diStri
"
people. and gave up TO capitalists as a
basis for traffic and speculation and
gigantic financial schemes what was by
the original policy of the government
designed to be homes for an industrious
and thrifty people. the ab0deS of do
meStic happiness and
VIRTUE AND PATRIOTISM.
Notwithstanding these indemnity
Withdrawals We're made exclusively for
the interests OF the company, few OF
these, if any of them, constructed their
roads within The time prescribed in the
granting act. as an express condition on
which the grant was made. Maps of
probable" general" designated
and definite" routes of railroad were
filed with rapidity in the department
and Withdrawals hereunder asked and
almost invariably granted until the
public land in states and territories was
gridir0ned over with railroad granted
and indemnity limits: and in many in
stances the limits of one road overlap
ping and conflicting with other roads in
the most beWildering manner so that
the settler seeking home could
scarcely find & desirable location that
was not claimed by some one. or per-
haps two or three Of the many roads to
which grants of lands had been made by
congress. Nor was this all. Though
the desired tract might not be appar
emily covered by railroad location, the
settler would hardly select 1t
before agents of the corporations
would set up a claim to it. or to the
right TO occupy and denude it under the
right OF way and construction priv
jlegeS conferred by the granting act.
Thus the settler. ignorant of his legal
rights, and with no one TO advise him
with respect to either the law or the
facts. would for the sake Of peace and
home readily consent to purchase from
the company. In this way these cor
p0ratiOns. in addition TO the lands
granted them. have claimed. sold and
received the price OF a great deal of
other land to which they had neither
legal nor moral right. nor the shadow of
either. The confusion. hardship and
impositions practiced upon the settlers
were greatly increased by the bold
schemes OF the corporate agents where
Withdrawals We're made of lands to
which the legal title OF the companies
had not attached. and which afterwards
remained in the same condition for
years through the failure of congress to
make the necessary appropriations for
the surveys. When, however, through
partial surveys or adjustments of grants,
lands thus sold by a company were
found to be outside of the grants and
determined by the department TO be
public lands. the purchaser from the
company found himself in
TUE J-NFORTI' NATE PREBIC AAIENT
OF having lost both his land and his
money. Generally without the means
TO enter into costly litigation with
powerful corporation. the deprivation OF
his home, the expenditure and waste of
his years. his energy and strength in
redeemin9 that home from its wild con-
ditiOn, rendered his mere technical
right of action against the company but
little more than a mOckery. Years have
elapsed since many of the grants have
been made. and other years since the
Withdrawals. Some of the companies
have constructed the entire line of their
road, others fragmentary portions only.
and others again none at all. but the
Withdrawals Of the lands were no less
effective as 4 barrier against the settlers
III the one case than in the other 1t
mattered moi what might be lis equities
acquired by years OF toll upon what he
believed to BE part of the national do
main. It was declared by the highest
judicial tribunal. as eXp0unded by the
highest law officers of the executive,
that a withdrawal once made 10y cOmpe-
tent authority was legal and effective TO
exclude all from intrusion within lis
limits. One such case where hardship
and injustice were about 10 he inflicted
under the law came under your 05ScrVa-
ton. Guilford Miller settled upon
lands afterwards selected and claimed
by the Northern Pacific Railroad com-
pany to he within the withdrawal for
Indemnity purposes. Some doubt arts
ing as TO the legality of that withdrawal
the case was referred by this depart
ment to the attorney general for his
opinion on the question OF law. That
officer held that the withdrawal was
legal, and that during IFS existence
Miller could acquire no right or title TO
:he tract claimed by him and OH which
in ii,.nd NNhilst rncnrmizin.r Ito COR